Opinions: Playing the Devil's Advocate

By: Natya Hans


It was not very long ago that Einstein coined a very famous phrase- “God does not play dice” to which Niels Bohr, his lifelong rival in Quantum Theory replied- “Einstein, please stop telling God what to do”. It’s no hidden fact that even Laplace and Newton could not disassociate themselves from the “God, with a capital G, angle” and even Stephen Hawking has to give a lecture or two to clarify the position of theoretical physicist being distinct from God theorists. Case in point- science and God often cross their paths, at least in theoretical debates.  I aim to tackle the playing God argument (while God is allowed to play or not play dice depending on his wish) and the Frankenstein motif that’s frequently levied on synthetic biologists and approach the whole subject matter from a philosophical standpoint rather than that of a biologist.

image source: http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Expertise-Services/Chair-groups/Agrotechnology-and-Food-Sciences/Laboratory-of-Systems-and-Synthetic-Biology/Research/Synthetic-Biology-1/Synthetic-Biology-Mark-van-Passel.htm

I shall call the starting point  the “knowing and making” theory. Immanuel Kant was one of the chief proponents of this and to quote him- “reason has insight only into what it itself produces according to its own plan”. The idea that there is a very close connection between knowing and making, between understanding an object and the ability to create or (re-)assemble it, is not at all foreign to the tradition of western science and philosophy. In several respects, synthetic chemistry is indeed a historical precursor to present-day synthetic biology; no wonder some contemporary practitioners attempt to draw heuristic lessons from this example. Synthetic biology may also have inherited some of the cultural ambivalences and reservations pertaining to the ‘natural-versus-artificial’ dichotomy from synthetic chemistry. The ability to design new life forms based on writing and rewriting quaternary codes of DNA nucleotides makes synthetic biologists closer in analogy to software designers rather than God, unless one is ready to draw an analogy between software designers and God as well! However, the root of the ethical problem lies not within the design of life form but in an apparent loss in the special meaning of life because of the juxtaposition of a seemingly reductionist view that synthetic biology casts on its cursory examination. The important thing to keep in mind is that life is not DNA, and with utmost certainty, life is not explained or understood in totality by the identification or synthesis of genomes. The fact remains that life is not a solitary phenomenon as cells come together in colonies and organisms in ecosystems hence making the understanding of a single life dependent on understanding its relationship with matter, energy and other lives. Engineering new forms of life starts with setting up a biological assembly line, the living equivalent of a transportation innovation. Synthetic biologists aim to reinvent biology in the same way Henry Ford revolutionized automobile manufacturing. Instead of installing standardized spark plugs or carburetors as a car moves down the line, the scientists tuck brand-new biological parts into the body of a bacterium. Born as an offshoot of genetic engineering, synthetic biology differs from it because unlike genetic engineering it does not work backwards to identify a cell with a desirable trait but rather designing new ones by taking a cue from electrical engineers and making synthetic genetic circuits with biological parts acting as transistors, resistors and capacitors.

Right throughout are lives we see two sets of people clashing with each other- one who believe in Creationism and the other who cites Evolution. Although most scientists are quick to deny that they are attempting to play God or following in Frankenstein’s footsteps, sometimes the more intrepid among them adopt a more defiant attitude. We have seen that at one point Craig Venter invited a comparison of his team’s work with that of Frankenstein by claiming ‘Shelley would have loved this!’. And James Watson’s famous retort ‘If scientists don’t play God, who else is going to?’ Among the believers in Creationism, there are two sets- strong and weak believers. Weak believers assign synthetic biology its unethical position by proclaiming that genetic manipulation is an interference with the nature while strong believers cite the synthetic approach as an encroachment in the work that has usually been assigned to be a divine prerogative.

With these two views in mind, the debate boils down to whether we are ready to endorse synthetic biology for its purported (some achieved) benefits, such as

a)      Tweaking photosynthesis for better crop yield- One idea is that new enzymes could boost the amount of energy that plants can extract from the sun. Another suggests there might be a totally different way to pull usable carbon from the atmosphere.

b)      Energy- Since 2000, the U.S. Department of Energy has poured millions of dollars into funding synthetic biology biofuels research, such as new types of algae to secrete biodiesel or other engineered fuels that don’t have to be pumped from the ground.

c)       Treatments- Researchers managed to engineer a species of yeast to produce large amounts of a chemical precursor to the anti­malarial drug artemisinin, typically harvested from the wormwood tree of east Asia. The pharmaceutical company Sanofi is now working to bring the process to market.

d)      Cleaning up- Microbes are already used at oil spill sites, eating petroleum components and converting them into less hazardous by-products. Designing synthetic versions that can do the job quicker, and perhaps break down more stubborn pollutants such as pesticides and radioactive waste, would be a logical next step.

In the defense of synthetic biology, I would like to cite Richard Feynman’s quote “What I cannot see, I cannot understand”. Rather than sticking to the criticism of what are just assumed dangers, a much more logical step would be to progress in a direction that reaps benefits and leads life to even more vitality.